POLICY REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL

TO: Standing Committee on Planning and the Environment

FROM: Director of Health Protection of Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, in consultation with the Director of Legal Services, Chief Constable, General Manager of Community Services and General Manager of Engineering Services

SUBJECT: Noise Regulation - Addressing Car Alarm Noise

RECOMMENDATIONS

CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The City Manager RECOMMENDS approval of A through C.

POLICY
The City's Motor Vehicle Noise Abatement By-law contains provisions restricting the sounding of car alarms for more than 1 minute or more than 3 times in a 24-hour period and provides for impoundment of an offending vehicle.

In October, 1997 City Council received the report and recommendations of the Urban Noise Task Force, among which were 3 recommendations to address car alarms - a prohibition of car alarms was not included as one of the Task Force recommendations. Council adopted two recommendations of the Task Force, while rejecting the notion of controlling decibel levels of car alarms.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to respond to Council's request for further information on regulating or prohibiting the use of audible car alarms in Vancouver.

BACKGROUND

Situational Analysis
In order to get a sense of the scope of the problem of car alarm noise and a handle on the magnitude of the task to better control these intrusions, the following analysis is provided:

Vehicle security technology
Vehicle security systems come in a variety of choices and technology, as pre-installed or after-market varieties and operate at various levels of sophistication. In general there are three types of car security systems - ignition system immobilizers, audible security systems and inaudible (or private alert) systems. Immobilizer systems are the most recent form and may soon become mandatory equipment in new vehicles. They work by preventing a vehicle from being started by someone who has gained unauthorized access.

The audible systems have been around for some time and operate by alerting the nearby public that an unauthorized entry has been attempted. The sensitivity of most modern audible systems can be set by the user (or installer) so as to minimize the risk of false alarms (e.g. when a noisy motorcycle or heavy truck goes by). Most systems also generate an audible signal when they are activated or inactivated (a brief "double beep" or brief sounding of the car horn), which in itself can be a source of annoyance for nearby residents, especially in the early morning hours and especially for those that utilize the car's horn as the activation signal. This activation signal can normally be turned off by the user, who then relies on flashing of the head lights to signify the system is armed. Finally, many factory-installed systems also include a "panic button" feature, which allows the user to instantaneously arm and set off the car alarm to ward off an attack while in or near their vehicle. This safety feature would be inactivated along with the car alarm under an outright prohibition of use.

The inaudible systems operate by paging the owner electronically that an unauthorized entry is being attempted. Although these have the benefit of not being heard by neighbours, they may present a safety risk to the car-owner if he or she rushes out to the vehicle, in response to the page, while the break-in is still in progress.

Vehicle Security
There is an important distinction to be made as to the efficacy of various car security systems between preventing theft of the auto (where vehicle immobilizers are the current system of choice) and theft from the auto (where immobilizers would have little effect). Table 1 illustrates the distinction between theft of auto and theft from auto for the years 2000 to 2003 (Source: ICBC). These numbers would indicate that the majority of claims are related to "smash and grab" break-ins of vehicles rather than physical theft of the auto, in which case the immobilizer technology would not have been effective in preventing or reducing the frequency of this type of crime. ICBC advises that "Vehicle alarms, when paired with an engine immobilizer, offer the vehicle owner a level of protection from all three types of auto crime. Newer technology has significantly reduced the occurrence of false alarms."

Table 1

 

2000

2001

2002

2003

Theft of Auto

4859

5281

4613

4778

Value ($)

$19,854,098

$21,864,773

$15,931,352

$15,629,421

Theft from Auto

18217

18906

13916

10945

Value ($)

$11,925,090

$13,264,647

$9,324,297

$7,028,228

In answer to the question "Do alarms prevent/reduce theft from auto?" the following analysis (Table 2) was provided by the VPD. As can be seen from the data, District 1 (Downtown Peninsula) has significantly more thefts from auto than the other districts, which may explain the perception that there are an inordinate number of audible alarms sounding. Conversely, District 1 has fewer actual thefts of auto, and significantly less than the southern and western parts of the city.

Table 2

 

District 1
Downtown/WE

District 2
North

District 3
South

District 4
West

Theft of Auto

1165

1346

1838

1950

Theft from Auto

6247

3410

2990

4138

Current Regulatory Framework and Enforcement Procedure

Since 1989, the City's Motor Vehicle Noise Abatement By-law has contained provisions to address the proliferation of false alarms from car alarm systems. The provisions, made subsequent to amendments to the Vancouver Charter, provide for the following:

"3. The following noises are, in the opinion of the Council of the City of Vancouver, objectionable or liable to disturb the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort or convenience of individuals or the public:

... (f) the sound of an automobile security system which is made, either continuously or intermittently, for a period exceeding one minute, or the sound of an automobile security system, but not including its activation status signal, which is made more than three times in a 24 hour period.

4. No person shall make or cause to be made any objectionable noise set forth in section 3 hereof.

7A. A vehicle which has an automobile security system operating in contravention of this bylaw shall, for the purposes of the Impounding By-law, be deemed to be a vehicle unlawfully left upon a street.

A concurrent amendment to the Impounding By-law permitted the impoundment of offending vehicles from the street (public property).

Current enforcement:

The normal response scenario under the current by-law would start with the Police receiving a 911 call reporting a malfunctioning or constantly sounding car alarm. The Police would respond according to their current priorities. The attending officer would have to witness (hear) the offending vehicle's car alarm sound for more than 1 minute (or more than 3 times (no minimum duration) in 24 hours). The vehicle would then be deemed to be "a vehicle unlawfully left upon a street" and would be impounded to the City's impound yard. Normal procedure would not include issuance of a Violation Notice against the registered owner of the vehicle as impoundment results in a considerable financial penalty to the owner. Under the City Noise By-laws the minimum fine is normally set at $100 per offence at the maximum at $2000. Typically the courts will set penalties on conviction at or close to the minimum on a first offence and progress toward the maximum if there is a record of repeat violations.

Whilst the impoundment process addresses the disturbance of the residents in the area the vehicle was originally parked, it sometimes creates a new disturbance for residents living next to the impound yard. Some method of inactivating an illegally sounding car alarm while it is being towed needs to be pursued to minimize these off-site impacts.

These provisions, in practical terms, have allowed for effective enforcement against vehicles on a street whose security systems are continuously sounding. Parking Enforcement staff could also provide enforcement and impoundment of vehicles that are deemed to be in violation. At present Parking Enforcement is only available in the early evening, and so do not currently provide service at times when noisy alarms are disturbing sleep. However, this procedure is under review, and late-night enforcement could provide an alternative to relieve the workload of the Police.

Enforcement against the owners of vehicles on private property (e.g. private lots, apartment building garages, strata titled buildings) is not so straightforward because of limitations in the provincial enabling legislation. The attending officer is not permitted to have the vehicle impounded and faces challenges in gaining evidence to issue a ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle. Access to private property for enforcement purposes is also an issue. Staff do not have a good handle on how many car alarm complaints are related to private property (versus cars parked on a street or lane), but the vast majority of enforcement activity is related to cars parked on a street.
While staff generated some possible solutions to this enforcement challenge, they require more time to properly investigate what additional powers might be required to effectively enforce on private property, with a future report back to Council on any consequential amendments to the City's by-laws.

Other Jurisdictions
Staff has surveyed other jurisdictions, either by telephone or by web search, to determine whether any had adopted or were contemplating a prohibition on audible car alarms. Locally, the City of Burnaby recently took action against continuously sounding car alarms by adopting a similar provision to the one that already exists in the City's Motor Vehicle Noise Abatement By-law.

A quick check with other Canadian jurisdictions did not reveal any existing or proposed prohibitions against car alarms. A Toronto City Councillor has expressed interest in the current Vancouver provisions and any other action Council might take.

The City of New York has been reviewing the issue with a few groups lobbying the City Council for the past two years to prohibit the use of audible car alarms. Two similar bills were introduced, Bill 81 which would prohibit the sale and installation of new car alarms in the City of New York, and Bill 115 which would have required the disconnection or disabling of a vehicle security alarm while in the five boroughs of New York City irrespective of where it was purchase or installed. In June, New York City Council's Environmental Protection Committee approved an amended version of Int. 81 and sent it to the full council, which passed Int. 81A on July 21, 2004. In mid-August, the Mayor officially vetoed the bill, ostensibly to refer the feasibility of banning car alarms to further study under the Mayor's noise code revision process; the City Council overrode the Mayor's veto on September 28th.

Feasibility of Prohibiting Car Alarm Use

Transportation Alternatives, the New York group pushing New York City Council to enact a ban on car alarm use has conducted research on the feasibility of prohibiting the use of audible car alarms in New York City. They concluded that:

In addition, they have sought the support of alarm installers to assist in disabling/disconnecting systems.
Nevertheless, New York's Mayor, the Speaker of New York City Council and others have noted the legal and practical hurdles associated with banning the use of audible car alarms. The Speaker's research indicated that a number of auto-makers considered factory-installed car alarms an integral part of the vehicle's central wiring and monitoring system. Disabling factory-installed alarms would mean disabling the vehicle's horn, which in itself would contravene federal regulatory and safety requirements. He also noted the enforcement dilemma created by an outright ban on the many non-residents coming into New York City on a daily basis. Your staff have similar concerns about the practicality of an outright ban on the many vehicles and vehicle owners coming into the City of Vancouver.

DISCUSSION
There is no doubt that the continuous sounding of an automobile security system is a nuisance, and has the potential of disturbing the peace, quiet and rest of nearby residents. The fact that it sounds continuously also minimizes its effectiveness as a deterrent to car theft, since most people will tend to ignore it after a few minutes of cycling on and off.

Staff considered whether the current challenge is one of inadequate enforcement/inadequate tools or is it one that justifies an outright ban of the use of automobile security systems.

On the issue of adequacy of enforcement, response to a complaint about a continuously sounding car alarm, especially at 2 or 3 a.m., will not normally be at the top of the Police Department's priority list given limited resources and competing priorities. One possible way of enhancing enforcement (i.e. more timely response, more frequent impoundment) is to look at empowering the Parking Enforcement staff to enforce this provision (including the impounding of the vehicle). Currently the Parking Enforcement staff enforces the "idling bus" provisions of the Motor Vehicle Noise Abatement by-law, although these enforcement actions typically occur during the standard work day, not in the early morning hours. At present Parking Enforcement is only available in the early evening, and so could not provide service at times when noisy alarms are disturbing sleep.  However this procedure is under review, and late-night enforcement for this and other parking infractions will be the subject of a future report from the General Manager of Engineering and could provide an alternative to relieve the workload of the Police. Staff are of the opinion that enhanced enforcement/impoundment under the existing provisions could lead to a significant reduction in the number of car alarm complaints without having to introduce and administer an outright prohibition. Even if a prohibition were to be enacted, the limiting factor will be the same as under the existing provisions - response time of enforcement staff.

In Law's opinion, the Vancouver Charter does not give Council the power to ban audible automobile car alarms.

OPTIONS:
Based on the above, the following potential options were explored to gain better control over continuously sounding car alarms:

Staff recommends the adoption of Option 1 (Education) on a city-wide basis and Option 2 on a pilot basis through February, 2005 in the West End and Yaletown (Police District 1). Staff requires more time to investigate Option 3 and report back on what is required in terms of changes to the Vancouver Charter to more effectively address car alarms sounding from vehicles parked on private property. At this time staff do not recommend pursuing Option 4, a prohibition of car alarms installation or use, either through City by-laws (no provision in the Vancouver Charter) or by pursuing provincial legislation.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
A reduction in the number and frequency of noise complaints related to car alarms should result in an improved living environment for residents, especially in the more densely populated areas of the City.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The enhanced enforcement pilot program proposed, utilizing Police and Parking Enforcement at night in the Downtown peninsula, could be initiated without any incremental funding, provided the Police are able to re-prioritize within existing budgets and provided that the Parking Enforcement night shift costs (if approved) could be recovered through fine revenue. The costs of the proposed educational program are minimal and will be funded through the Environmental Health (VCH) budget with potential cost-sharing with private sector and public sector partners.

CONCLUSION
Staff has concluded that the current regulatory provisions with respect to car alarms sounding on public property are sufficient to control the neighbourhood impacts, especially if augmented by an improved complaint response and enforcement process, potentially utilizing the Parking Enforcement staff. A pilot program in the downtown peninsula is proposed. Public awareness about the impacts of continuously sounding car alarms on neighbourhoods could be enhanced through a proposed educational campaign. Based on this analysis staff do not feel that a prohibition on the use or installation of car alarms would be justified at this time.

* * * * *

pe20041202.htm

Comments or questions? Send us e-mail at info@city.vancouver.bc.ca
© 2002 City of Vancouver